Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 21:02 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 10/1/2011 8:36 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 19:48 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >> On 10/1/2011 6:19 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >>> So much so that the anal-retentive opposition to such tagging is > >>> creating problems for mapping areas that explicitly assign such ratings > >>> officially! > >> > >> Assuming you're talking about some variant of the "bicycle level of > >> service", why would that belong on the map? We don't have tags for car > >> level of service. > > > > Sure we do. highway=trunk, highway=motorway, highway=primary...these > > tend to be primarily if not exclusively motorist-oriented in practice. > > Level of service is a technical concept that says how well a highway > handles the traffic it is given. I don't know if this article is any > good, but it covers the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service Well, the issue that Metro's trying to cover in migrating Bike There! to OpenStreetMap is that Bike There! does have LOS data. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 27/09/2011 21:57, Gérard wrote: Hi, After discussion at a mapping party in Toulouse, I propose a new tag bike_safety to scale how safe a street/road is for bicyles. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bike_safety Note that I consider that in the same way that primary/secondary/tertiary have a country dependant definition, I consider that the bike_safety tagging scale (from 1 to 4) has to be adjusted to country dependant safety conditions. The case of bike_safety within France is thus detailled in the FR page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bike_safety Err... Hello? Subjective? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 10/1/2011 8:36 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 19:48 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 10/1/2011 6:19 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: So much so that the anal-retentive opposition to such tagging is creating problems for mapping areas that explicitly assign such ratings officially! Assuming you're talking about some variant of the "bicycle level of service", why would that belong on the map? We don't have tags for car level of service. Sure we do. highway=trunk, highway=motorway, highway=primary...these tend to be primarily if not exclusively motorist-oriented in practice. Level of service is a technical concept that says how well a highway handles the traffic it is given. I don't know if this article is any good, but it covers the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 19:48 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 10/1/2011 6:19 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > So much so that the anal-retentive opposition to such tagging is > > creating problems for mapping areas that explicitly assign such ratings > > officially! > > Assuming you're talking about some variant of the "bicycle level of > service", why would that belong on the map? We don't have tags for car > level of service. Sure we do. highway=trunk, highway=motorway, highway=primary...these tend to be primarily if not exclusively motorist-oriented in practice. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 10/1/2011 6:19 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: So much so that the anal-retentive opposition to such tagging is creating problems for mapping areas that explicitly assign such ratings officially! Assuming you're talking about some variant of the "bicycle level of service", why would that belong on the map? We don't have tags for car level of service. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 11:22 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > > On 9/28/2011 12:08 PM, Josh Doe wrote: > > > Width of outside lane (no tags for this AFAIK) > > > Shoulder details (width, surface: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder) > > > > This only applies if you ride as far right as possible. It's safer to > > ride in the middle of the right lane, and causes little inconvenience > > if > > there's low traffic or more than one lane in each direction. > > > > Riding a bicycle in the middle of the outside lane will cause little > inconvenience to motorized traffic if there are multiple lanes each way AND > traffic is light. If you try this at rush hour, I guarantee you will tick > off a lot of motorists, and possibly even receive a ticket from the police > for impeding traffic, depending upon the local traffic laws. Show me a state that expects bicyclists to ride so far to the right that they endanger themselves, and I'll show you a state that shouldn't have roads to start with... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 13:13 -0500, Toby Murray wrote: > This discussion has happened before. I guess it will happen again. > > The argument that more hard-core riders can't judge the bicycle > friendliness of a road is ridiculous. So much so that the anal-retentive opposition to such tagging is creating problems for mapping areas that explicitly assign such ratings officially! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
Pieren wrote: > Then we can delete the keys "smoothness" , "sac_scale", "mtb:scale" > and "tracktype". But, oh no, they seem to be widely used. YMMV. I've never seen the first three in the wild in the UK. tracktype was once popular but is largely being supplanted by objective use of the surface= tag. > We just need a clear definition with objective facts for each value. Or better still, just tag the objective facts. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-bike-safety-tp6837720p6841630.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
Toby Murray wrote: > The argument that more hard-core riders can't judge the > bicycle friendliness of a road is ridiculous. Any bicycle > friendliness tags will obviously be targeted at average > commuting cyclists. It might seem "obvious" to you, but something else seems "obvious" to me! And that's the rub. The issue isn't that "hard-core riders" are unable to see things from the point of view of "average commuting cyclists". It's that no two people, no matter their level of expertise, agree on what is friendly. Here in the UK, the debate is polarised between those who believe "roads are naturally bike-friendly" (traditionally the CTC, many local cycle campaigns, commentators such as John Franklin) and those who believe "roads are not naturally bike-friendly and targeted infrastructure is needed" (Sustrans, some newer local cycle campaigns, the Cycle Embassy of Great Britain). There is absolutely no way you are going to get the two to agree on which road is bike-friendly and which isn't, nor on the criteria for how bike-friendliness is measured. FWIW, I'm very much of the second opinion, and I know a mapper 15 miles down the road who's very much of the first: so I can't see how it would work on OSM within my locality, let alone globally. (I'm not even sure how you define "average commuting cyclist". I'm faster uphill than my wife, and slower than her on the flat. Which of us is average? Do you tag a road with a steepish gradient for me, or for her?) > The fact that *I* ride along a road regularly in padded > lycra shorts I'm a pretty hard-core cyclist. I've never worn lycra in my life. Like I say, no two cyclists have the same opinions. :) > And yes, it would be nice to have every minute detail of a road > tagged in OSM. But let's be realistic here. Objective tagging does not have to be user-hostile. Quite the opposite. Firstly, objective facts are much easier to record. Take Wikipedia. The learning curve for Wikipedia is incredibly steep, because you have so much knowledge to learn before you can make a significant contribution - so many rules (the "WP:ABCD" type of thing), so many templates, so much markup. By contrast, simple OSM tagging requires much less prior knowledge. You want to tag a 30kph limit, you just click the way and enter "30" into the "speed limit" box. It's a simple objective fact. You don't have to read up on policies and guidelines before tagging. Obscure multi-factor scales don't work like that: you have to read up on the criteria, then do a whole bunch of thinking as to what value the way merits, then someone else disagrees with your reasoning, tags it differently, and you end up with an edit war. Sounds like Wikipedia? It does to me. Secondly, you can structure the tags in easily comprehensible ways. "Vehicles per day" is a really difficult number to get a handle on. A "traffic=1500vpd" tag is never going to catch on, unless by import. But "vehicles per minute" is much simpler. Anyone can say whether, on average, there's more or less than one car per minute outside their front door. But it's just as useful - it so happens that 1 vehicle per minute actually equates to a very commonly used measure of road quietness anyway... :) And thirdly, editors can and do abstract away a lot of the burden of tagging. One of the things I've noticed with Potlatch 2 is that, increasingly, people on help.osm.org say "I want to tag a "; someone replies with "use the tag thing=obscure"; and the original questioner comes back saying "er, how do I do that?". The Advanced panel is unknown to new users, and that's absolutely how it should be; because we've made it easy to tag the majority of things. Saying "users can't cope with adding all these details" rather assumes that the OSM community isn't smart enough to build tools to make it easy, and I can assure you we are. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-bike-safety-tp6837720p6841619.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/28/2011 2:13 PM, Toby Murray wrote: > >But people > > who are intereseted in cycling can (and have) easily add a single > tag > > and get some basic data into the system. > > I can accept this. But don't call it safety, since it's not. Call it > something that makes it clear that it's about how comfortable a > beginning or timid cyclist will be on the road. > The degree of safety (for any rider) and the suitability for inexperienced riders are also dependent on factors such as traffic levels at different times of day, weather conditions, and the like, so any routing advice has to be taken with a grain of salt. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 9/28/2011 2:13 PM, Toby Murray wrote: But people who are intereseted in cycling can (and have) easily add a single tag and get some basic data into the system. I can accept this. But don't call it safety, since it's not. Call it something that makes it clear that it's about how comfortable a beginning or timid cyclist will be on the road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
This discussion has happened before. I guess it will happen again. The argument that more hard-core riders can't judge the bicycle friendliness of a road is ridiculous. Any bicycle friendliness tags will obviously be targeted at average commuting cyclists. The fact that *I* ride along a road regularly in padded lycra shorts doesn't mean I would recommend it to others or that little Bobby should use it to get to school. There may certainly be occasional differences of opinion but, well... welcome to OSM. And yes, it would be nice to have every minute detail of a road tagged in OSM. But let's be realistic here. Especially in the US, we're lucky to even have mappers to correct major geometry problems. Lanes, maxspeeds, shoulder width, etc won't be in a usable condition in OSM (at least in most of the midwestern US) for years to come. But people who are intereseted in cycling can (and have) easily add a single tag and get some basic data into the system. If the data ever gets good enough that these general, somewhat subjective tags aren't needed then by all means, remove them. As always with OSM, things iterate towards completeness. Toby ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 9/28/2011 12:39 PM, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I put my own safety above the convenience of motorists. 'safety' or 'egocentrism' ? Safety. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > I put my own safety above the convenience of motorists. 'safety' or 'egocentrism' ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Josh Doe wrote: > Unfortunately this is true. What's needed is to document the objective > facts Then we can delete the keys "smoothness" , "sac_scale", "mtb:scale" and "tracktype". But, oh no, they seem to be widely used. Perhaps because they summarize in a simple tag a list of parameters which are otherwise complicated and painful to add when you really contribute to OSM. What was possible for all these scale tags could be reproduced for bike hazard, no ? We just need a clear definition with objective facts for each value. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 9/28/2011 12:22 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: If you try this at rush hour, I guarantee you will tick off a lot of motorists, and possibly even receive a ticket from the police for impeding traffic, depending upon the local traffic laws. I put my own safety above the convenience of motorists. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/28/2011 12:08 PM, Josh Doe wrote: > > Width of outside lane (no tags for this AFAIK) > > Shoulder details (width, surface: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder) > > This only applies if you ride as far right as possible. It's safer to > ride in the middle of the right lane, and causes little inconvenience > if > there's low traffic or more than one lane in each direction. > Riding a bicycle in the middle of the outside lane will cause little inconvenience to motorized traffic if there are multiple lanes each way AND traffic is light. If you try this at rush hour, I guarantee you will tick off a lot of motorists, and possibly even receive a ticket from the police for impeding traffic, depending upon the local traffic laws. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 9/28/2011 12:08 PM, Josh Doe wrote: Width of outside lane (no tags for this AFAIK) Shoulder details (width, surface: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder) This only applies if you ride as far right as possible. It's safer to ride in the middle of the right lane, and causes little inconvenience if there's low traffic or more than one lane in each direction. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/9/27 Nathan Edgars II : >> On 9/27/2011 4:57 PM, Gérard wrote: >> Given that studies disagree about what makes a street safe for cyclists, any >> tagging would be based not on safety but on how comfortable the mapper feels >> while riding in his or her preferred style. Use hazard:bicycle if there's a >> specific hazard (e.g. door zone bike lane, badly-positioned drainage grates, >> angled railway crossing, attack dogs that chase cyclists). Otherwise safety >> depends much more on how defensively the cyclist rides than how the street >> is designed. +1 Unfortunately this is true. What's needed is to document the objective facts about a roadway that can then be interpreted to give a safety level tailored to each rider, whether a 10 year old biking to school or a seasoned road biker who doesn't mind occupying a travel lane on a 35 mph road. We need to look at existing bike level of service metrics and figure out what components can be easily recorded by the average mapper, and create our own set of metrics to determine road safety: http://www.bikelib.org/bike-planning/bicycle-level-of-service/ (search "bicycle level of service" for many more) Some of of the more important ones: Through lanes (see recent lanes=* discussion, ambiguity of total vs. through lanes, maybe lanes:through=*) Width of outside lane (no tags for this AFAIK) Shoulder details (width, surface: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder) Traffic volume (will have to post-process from government/private data, as almost 100% think this doesn't belong in OSM, due to variability and difficulty of measurement) Speed limit (maxspeed=*) Perhaps we should start a new discussion thread on developing these criteria? -Josh ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
2011/9/27 Nathan Edgars II : > On 9/27/2011 4:57 PM, Gérard wrote: > Given that studies disagree about what makes a street safe for cyclists, any > tagging would be based not on safety but on how comfortable the mapper feels > while riding in his or her preferred style. Use hazard:bicycle if there's a > specific hazard (e.g. door zone bike lane, badly-positioned drainage grates, > angled railway crossing, attack dogs that chase cyclists). Otherwise safety > depends much more on how defensively the cyclist rides than how the street > is designed. +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
On 9/27/2011 4:57 PM, Gérard wrote: Hi, After discussion at a mapping party in Toulouse, I propose a new tag bike_safety to scale how safe a street/road is for bicyles. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bike_safety Given that studies disagree about what makes a street safe for cyclists, any tagging would be based not on safety but on how comfortable the mapper feels while riding in his or her preferred style. Use hazard:bicycle if there's a specific hazard (e.g. door zone bike lane, badly-positioned drainage grates, angled railway crossing, attack dogs that chase cyclists). Otherwise safety depends much more on how defensively the cyclist rides than how the street is designed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bike safety
Have you seen the class:bicycle tag? It seems like this is fairly similar. It has a scale of -3 to +3 and already has over 3,000 uses in the database: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Class:bicycle http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/class:bicycle Toby On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Gérard wrote: > Hi, > > After discussion at a mapping party in Toulouse, I propose a new tag > bike_safety to scale how safe a street/road is for bicyles. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bike_safety > Note that I consider that in the same way that primary/secondary/tertiary > have a country dependant definition, I consider that the bike_safety tagging > scale (from 1 to 4) has to be adjusted to country dependant safety > conditions. The case of bike_safety within France is thus detailled in the > FR page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bike_safety > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
